sundog1 Reviews

Luster (2002)

See it if you must

[1/10 · 23 January 2004]

Luster is a coming of age story about a group of 20 & 30 somethings in L.A. in the midst of an odyssey into their teens. And they are soooo cool & punk rock. They've got that really rebellious "I'm REAL punk rock & I'm not a poseur & you ARE & the rest of the world sux" thing from high school still going pretty strong.

Everyone in LA is infatuated with the lead character Jackson, even the "guy next door" who stalks him at work. I'm not sure why, since I was eventually hoping someone would smack Jackson upside the head & shut him up.

Amongst the film's problems are too many story lines & subplots fighting for attention, none of which seem to blend or create a sense of relevance to Jackson's life or a cohesive central theme. The worst of these is an S & M subplot that seems terribly contrived, misplaced, & rings totally false with the rest of the film's "realism."

There are a couple of funny moments, like the photographer & the interaction with her "subject."

And of course there are a couple of full frontals from a really good looking guy, which help this situation along slightly.

But worse of all, I never felt for a minute why Jackson was lusting for these guys & guys were lusting for him. There's no sexual chemistry in this movie between anyone. NADA. Just a bunch of obnoxious & pretentious brats pretending to deal with "real life" & "art." Yuck.

Plenty of better queer films out there.

See it if you must.

Beautiful Thing (1996)

Sugar-Coated

[16 January 2004]

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who didn't like this movie, but sadly, I am one of the few.

The setting of the film might have provided a tight, dark coming of age story set in the midst of adverse circumstances.

The main problem I had was the blending of dramatic and comedic elements. The film just touches some real issues, but never delves deep enough into them to make them believable. Ultimately, it eschews truth & insight in favor of light comedic moments & resolutions which are awkwardly positioned in the plot. I felt like the movie was straddling the line between drama and comedy, and because it could not delve completely into either side, ultimately fell flat and became jumbled mush. Not that there is anything bad with mixing genres, but if it is done successfully.

I have to commend Tameka Empson as Leah, the Mama Cass loving freak who's tripping her brains out -- the best character in the film. Also Ben Daniels is good, as a compassionate, likeable pot smoking guy with a good heart who is inexplicably & coldly dismissed from the film.

I just had trouble believing the actions & reactions of the two leads given the rough, cold social context of the film. I couldn't help but wonder how the film would have been be if we were given the real story of two young gay guys fighting for survival in a brutal environment such as this.

I attribute all the positive critics' reviews to a fear of being labeled "politically incorrect." But there are plenty of better gay films which blow this away ("Hedwig," Marcelo Pinero's "Burnt Money").

For me, a big disappointment.

American Gigolo (1980)

50 Ways To Remix Call Me

[14 January 2004]

May Contain Spoilers

This film has some good elements that would have made a good film noir, but it manages to eschew all of them.

The biggest problem here is the central relationship between Gere and Hutton. Although I think Hutton is one of the most beautiful faces in current memory, there is absolutely no chemistry between the two. The characters are not fleshed out, and I still have no idea why she would feel so drawn to Gere in the first place. What is their "magic connection." Why is she so special to him? Their sex scenes are almost funny (in a melted cheese sort of way) and surprisingly devoid of any real passion.

The Gere/Hutton relationship should be the core around which the rest of the film is built, but without character development & convincing interaction / motives, the rest of the film crumbles.

This of course is a Jerry Bruckheimer production, and perhaps in renegade hands it would have been a tight 80's film noir. It manages to capture the 80's lifestyle, but believe me, it ain't no Scarface.

It does have its positive points - some nice camera work & lighting, Georgio Moroder's theme song (remixed every possible way imaginable), and Richard Gere's (eh-hem) "moment."

But if there's a lesson to be learned here kids, African-American gay men are bad, bad, bad people. And don't you forget it (?!) Whatever...

The ending is just dreadful, and I could only imagine how much better it could have been if the saccharine quotient had been reduced by several tablespoons.

Still it's watchable, and there are worse films you could spend 2 hours with.

Read My Lips (2001)

Excellente

[12 January 2004]

This is one of the best films in recent memory. To keep it short, it is a brilliant character study of two outcast souls who find common bond in the most unlikely situations. The main characters are fleshed out perfectly by the Devos & Cassel.

Every time you think you know where the plot is going, it veers off in a different unexpected direction. Absolutely unique & intriguing. I ended up watching it two nights in a row, which very rarely happens for me. Second viewing improves... I was frustrated the first round by not having a clue where the film was going.

Artistic, yet not pretentious - a rare treat in current film. The artistic moments blend inconspicuously with the film's tone & themes (they do not stick out like a sore thumb).

I cannot recommend this film highly enough.

The Crime of Padre Amaro (2002)

Great

[11 January 2004]

I thought this film was better than most people did. I wasn't sure what to expect, so I was pleasantly surprised. The main genius is the sacrifice of Amaro's integrity to his political stance in the church. It's a brilliant character study, and Amaros's disintegration is fleshed out perfectly.

Bottom line, I think Gael García Bernal is an amazing actor. The bulk of the film rests on his shoulders, and he carries it perfectly. He and Alison Lohman are the best young actors of their generation currently working in film.

Titus (1999)

Make it Stop

[11 January 2004]

A very, very, very long movie.

Everything seems borrowed from other Shakespeare film adaptations. Sadly, the biggest thing this film lacks is passion. True, the subject matter is brutal, but dark tones, art direction, & Elizabethan dialogue do not alone a great film make.

It failed to generate any spark, and I had trouble caring about any of the characters. Pretentious is the word that comes to mind.

Lange does a good job, but she actually doesn't have much screen time. And the Rhys brothers are just obnoxious, yelling & screaming every line.

Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream" was released in the same time frame, and though it may not have been the greatest film to grace the silver screen, at least it wasn't weighed down by the snooty self-important baggage of this production.

Even the group orgy is a letdown. If you need to see something of that nature, I'm sure Caligula will give you your fix... at least there's no pretense disguising what that film is...

So, so, so long. And very heavy. Like dragging rocks to the pyramids. 2 & 3/4 hrs. Good luck. See it if you must.

A Mighty Wind (2003)

Great!

[10 January 2004]

I loved this movie. I read a lot of reviews stating it wasn't as good as the group's previous work, so I wasn't expecting too much. Maybe that was good, because I was pleasantly surprised. Great characters, laugh out loud moments, and somehow strangely touching. I just wish there was a little time devoted to the characters (i agree it could have used an extra 20 minutes). Anyway, highly recommended. Those who disagree just need to lighten up. It'll put a smile on your face.

With a Friend Like Harry... (2000)

Disappointing

[10 January 2004]

I'm going to be in the minority, since so much praise has been heaped on this film. Ultimately (for me) it was slow and far too predictable. Within the first 20 minutes, you already know where the film is going (and man, it takes a long time to get there!)

Given the good reviews, I was expecting much more.

A major problem is that the leads fail to generate any real interest or spark. The cinematography is great, but as a whole, the film failed to sustain my interest or pull me in, and I was starting to doze the last 15 minutes.

For an brilliantly understated current French thriller, I would recommend Read My Lips (Sur Mes Levres). Bottom line for me is character development.

Though many may disagree, Harry just didn't "do it" for me.

Joy Ride (2001)

B Movie ... B as in BAD

[10 January 2004]

This movie is bad, bad, bad. Oh, and did I mention it is bad. Given the word of mouth and favorable reviews, I was expecting SOMETHING. But no, it is bad. I'm not sure who would find this thing scary or why (with the exception of possibly the pre-13 crowd). Comparisons to Hitchock?! Don't even go there PLEASE!

Plot holes so big that the "evil-semi" could barrel through them... no character development, I won't go on & on.

I suppose if you want to see Paul Walker & Steve Zahn's buns, it will make your 1.5 hours worth while.

Live Flesh (1997)

Good, but not Almodovar's best

[13 December 2003]

Live Flesh belongs to a trilogy of Almodovar films which also includes Talk to Her & All About My Mother. All three are circular films which involve the rearrangement of characters' lives & relationships. The plot device to motivate this rearrangement in all three films is a tragedy. All three films also rely heavily on coincidence.

I thought the film was good, but it didn't quite "draw me in" to the extent of the other two. But clearly, the groundwork is being laid for Talk to Her, Almodovar's most accomplished film.

In general, I liked the performances, but I felt the actor who played Victor was a little too young for the part. Though he is exceedingly easy on the eyes, he didn't quite have the charisma that Banderas demonstrated in Tie Me Up (a very similar character in an earlier Almodovar film). Subsequently, that affected my connection with Victor as a protagonist. He was a little too boy-ish (supposed to be 28), and I wasn't entirely convinced that he has spent 7 years in the slammer. He seemed a little too unaffected, contrary to innocent/obsessed edgy role Banderas nailed in Tie Me Up.

But these are personal opinions, and the film is necessary to fully appreciate its companion pieces. It doesn't achieve the homage to campy women's melodrama of All About My Mother, nor the perfect poetry & cinematic genius of Talk to Her, but still worth your time.

Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! (1989)

One of Almodovar's Best

[13 December 2003]

Atame! is my favorite Almodovar film. A lot of people don't think it is incredibly great, but I have to disagree.

Although Talk to Her is probably his most accomplished & strongest film to date, Atame has a light comedic air without the tragic overtones of his latest films. The movie provides some insight into the film-making process a la Fellini. It also deals with psychological imprisonment, release, and how some forms of entrapment are preferable to others.

Both leads are great, and it's easy to see how Banderas' charisma led him to be such a well known actor in later years.

Highly recommended.

White Oleander (2002)

Hit or Miss

[10/10 · 3 December 2003]

This is the type of film that you're either going to love or think is ridiculous.

Much depends on whether the viewer has experienced any of Astrid's struggles on one level or another. There are several missed opportunities on the director's part, some careless editing, and much of the material feels as though it has been white-washed to fit into PG-13 constraints.

However, the film is still subtle, quietly understated, with great performances & a nice score to accent the story. Probably worth a little more credit than it received on initial release, recommended for those whose life has been less than sheltered.

A handful of nice cinematic moments definitely make this worth a watch (Astrid & Ingrid on the roof, Astrid waiting for Ingrid outside Barry's house, Astrid & Paul watching chess at the beach, Astrid & Rena's conversation).

Worth a second watch if you relate to any of the characters, as it touches several universal themes of the human condition. Not necessarily just a "chick flick." Much depends on personal emotional connection to the material.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)

So-So

[3 December 2003]

I must admit when I saw this as a kid, it scared the hell out of me.

But watching it again recently, it wasn't nearly as horrifying. At times the lighting is poor to the point of distraction, there is only one real "scare," and the film is surprisingly un-gory (actually, Jaws, made the following year, has far more scares & blood & gore... yet somehow got a PG rating from MPAA)

Although released only 4 years prior to John Carpenter's 1978 Halloween, Chainsaw doesn't come anywhere close to the subtle build of tension, fear & isolation of that film. The character development in TCM is also suprisingly sparse, which is why Halloween works better as a whole. Though Kirk, Pam & Sally do provide some eye candy (for what it's worth).

Several of the chase scenes are messy & laughable, but they are tempered with some wonderful tracking shots around "the house" during daylight hours. The film comes alive when there is enough light to produce a nice shot.

A must watch when considering the development & history of horror films, but not quite as strong as some other classics in the genre.

The Age of Innocence (1993)

Scorsese's Ignored Masterpiece

[10/10 · 14 November 2003]

I actually saw this movie when it was released in 1993, and honestly it was pretty dull then. Of course I was 22, and the workings of that late-1800's New York society really didn't make much sense or have much relevance.

I think the film may have been ignored at its release because of the slew of other "period pieces" which were so popular (an eventually common) in the late 80's/early 90's... But watching it again 10 years later, this film is anything but common.

The true intensity is Scorcese's detached presentation of a hypocritical & hateful society which holds its members as prisoners.

Not to mention impeccable art direction & beautiful cinematography by the legendary Michael Ballhaus. The film looks as impressionistic as the paintings that line the walls of the characters' homes.

Scorsese is always acute in his casting decisions, and this is one of the films many virtues:

Lewis is perfect as a man who's struggle between his passion & his duty are constantly on the verge of devouring him (yet somehow he thrives on his torture).

Ryder is the seemingly innocent & naive girl who is completely manipulative & cunning underneath her exterior (gee, who would have thought?!) -- notice the arching scene.

In a sense, this was one of Pfeiffer's defining roles. Pfeiffer herself (in a sense) is an "outcast" who has never truly been accepted as a "serious" actress by her peers in the acting community. Watching this film again, it amazes me how this role somehow reflects her personal position in the current social structure of Hollywood, similar to her character existing in 1800's New York society.

Wow...

What an amazing pic. I completely "missed it" the first time around. Great observance of "high society." Many of those codes are strangely applicable today.

Not recommended for those who like fast paced movies, or those who are looking for the "usual Scorcese." I would couple this with "Last Temptation of Christ" as Scorsese's most brave, artistic, demanding & abstract films to date.

28 Days Later (2002)

Brilliant film marred by its ending

[3 November 2003]

I highly recommend this film, I think it is well made and is worth viewing even for the atmosphere alone.

Every once in a while a film comes along which plays eloquently, then veers in a strange inconsistent direction, most likely at the request of industry execs to assure mass audience satisfaction. What Lies Beneath was another such film.

Possible spoilers

28 Days is much more than a simple by the numbers horror flick. It addresses themes of paranoia in society, and the dangers that the paranoia can yield. It also addresses the danger of power in a heightened state of fear. On that level, it works very well as a commentary on the current political climate in our world.

From the start, Danny Boyle poses a non-conventional approach to the story. His use of Digital Camera, male as a sex object (as opposed to female), enlightened & strong female protagonists, the destruction of foreshadowing (the 4 surviving horses), etc.

In all respects the beginning carries all the marks of a fiercely independent film, with enough atmosphere to burn.

All this said, the last 20 minutes of the movie feel really cheap. Rather than continue to break convention, Boyle chooses an ending which surely is a crowd pleaser. And even after seeing the alternate endings, something still doesn't feel right. And all I could keep thinking is how I would have liked it to end differently.

Romero's Night of the Living had a daring, disturbing, unconventional ending -- especially for 1968, but of course NOTLD was an independent film... then I looked at the 28 days box & saw the FOX VIDEO logo & realized that beneath it all, it is still a big studio movie... so the ending has unfortunately been comprimised.

Even with the additional endings featured on DVD (and probably because of them), the film feels unstable. The viewer is left with uncertainty of the director's vision & statement. So adding the "alternate" endings to the contrived studio ending just leaves more confusion as to Boyle's original message. And this is upsetting because the rest of the film plays out so perfectly.

Nonetheless, my personal gripes aside, I still think it's a brilliant movie and quite enjoyable as a whole. The greatest disappointment is that a film that would strive so hard to break convention would slide carelessly back into it at the end.

Bent (1997)

Too forced

[30 October 2003]

Sadly, though this film is only 1hr 45min, it feels like watching Ted Turner's Gods & Generals in slow motion.

It's about as enjoyable as dental surgery.

The main issue I have with a lot of gay cinema is that it places the gay male into one of two categories: The Clown or The Victim.

This film obviously takes the victim route, and even in the context of the subject matter, the film still needs to pander for the audience's sympathy. And ultimately, that pandering feels manipulative & it just distances the viewer from the material.

The films seems more concerned with eliciting sympathy through contrived plot devices & Schindler's List-eque music than it is with building a strong character study.

From what I understand, Burnt was originally a play in the 1980's. This most likely worked better then, given the 80's political environment. It may have served as a successful metaphor for the AIDS epidemic in the midst of the Reagan / Thatcher years.

But the film was released in 1997, the Clinton / Blair years & the age of "safe sex," so the political relevance is sadly missing, and the film just doesn't really click (for me at least.) So it doesn't really work as a historical analogy, which may be attributed to its original success.

I highly recommend Marcelo Pineyro's Burnt Money as a film which successfully manages to break genre conventions. Rather than have the plot exist within the framework of homosexuality, homosexuality exists within the framework of the plot, therefore it works successfully within several genres. But most importantly, it doesn't use victimization to propel itself.

And though Clive Owen is easy on the eyes, it's not enough to rescue the film's frustratingly slow pace or often cliched dialogue.

And seeing Mick Jagger in drag doesn't exactly help the situation either.

Flesh for Frankenstein (1973)

Trash & Art

[10/10 · 29 October 2003]

A brilliant fusion of camp cinema & art...

Puts on a disguise of a trash film, but really it is a commentary on social structure. It also explores the manipulation of lower classes by aristocrats, the duality of social mores relative to class, and how the perversions of the wealthy are spread to their youth.

All of this and laugh till your sides split. Some of the humor is perverse, but the film's over-the-top style manages to succeed on all levels.

Udo Kier is perfect as the obsessed neurotic Frankenstein who by mistake chooses the head of a gay guy to mate with his female monster.

Monique Van Vooren is perfect as the Baroness Katrin Frankenstein, and she must qualify as one of the campiest female leads in film history (right up there with Elizabeth Berkeley in Showgirls & Dolly Read in Beyond the Valley of the Dolls)

Highly recommended, followed by Blood for Dracula, which didn't really achieve the camp heights of FFF.

Blood for Dracula (1974)

Not as Good as Flesh for Frankenstein

[29 October 2003]

Though BFD is stronger visually than Morrissey's FFF, it can't quite achieve the camp heights of the latter.

The cinematic twins were made back to back, and the fresh spark of the first (FFF) is missing here.

The usually beefy Joe is looking more pale thin & sickly than Udo here, kinda like he's ready to head back to NY for his fix...

The acting is not nearly as over the top & exaggerated as the first, and that ultimately hurts the film because the laugh factor is decreased substantially. Udo is not the same obsessive manical mess of the first film.

The genius of FFF was the exterior of pure trash cinema filled with thematically rich undercurrents of class structure and corruption & manipulation of the poor by the "upper crust." Kinda like an eclair.

Similar themes are touched on in BFD, along with some parallels to the Russian Revolution, but ultimately, it just isn't as much fun. And the second installation is sadly missing some of the key players of FFF. Kinda like a stale cookie.

Of the two, I definitely recommend FFF as an intelligent film in disguise of trash cinema. It improves with repeated viewings, and for me it is a strange classic.

BFD is good to watch as an appendix & bookend to the Morrissey/Warhol collaborations, but for the most part, everyone looks like they're ready to go home.

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

And then came Moses

[28 October 2003]

A film deserving of all the praise it received & then some. I won't reiterate much of what you've probably read, but Moore's most successful feat is raising consciousness (whether you agree with his view or not).

He addresses the NRA, racism in current America, and the government & media's perpetuation & affirmation of fear in our national mindset.

I believe everyone should watch this film at some point, regardless of political stance.

A very admirable undertaking.

Punch-Drunk Love (2002)

Oh so Important

[27 October 2003]

A somewhat irritating exercise in self-indulgence from the usually great PT Anderson.

I mean, I love films with symbolism, theme & stylization, but not when I can I can practically hear the director in the background of every shot screaming "I'M A GREAT DIRECTOR! LOOK AT MY WORK OF ART!"

Apparently, Punch-Drunk Love is some sort of American rip of Jean Pierre Jeunet's Amelie, with a similar plot line involving 2 dysfunctional individuals seeking love -- both films with a "dark" subplot which threatens the central character's pursuit & realization of that union (Amelie w/the picture booth, PDL w/ the phone sex gang)...

Some sort of masturbatory filmmaking by the "in crowd" of Hollywood, PDL seems more concerned with tooting its own horn & parading is "artistry" than building strong or remotely interesting narrative & characters...

Where Amelie provided history & background to support the pathos of the leads & empathy, PDL provides none. The film is so cruel to Emily Watson's character, that it doesn't even give a clue as to her inexplicable attraction to Sandler's character, except maybe some sort of twisted autistic fetish (?!)

And no, I can't sit trough it 2 more times to seek all the hidden clues & symbolism or figure out WHY the film is "oh so important."

And no, I don't think that breaking genre conventions necessarily has to be this painful either...

The air is a bit too thick with pretense for my taste, and I just can't bring myself to contribute another laurel to Anderson's pile of collective hubris.

On that note, I think I'll watch Amelie once again, as I try not to confuse good cinema with pretense masquerading as art.

I recommend Amelie for a poignant, sincere, involving & beautifully filmed story of love's most unlikely candidates.

For the other 90% of the herd who sing PDL's praises, please disregard this review.

It's genius... right? Puts Altman to shame, I'm sure...

Oh, so important...

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Convincing?

[10 October 2003]

There seems to be a lot of convincing going on in The Two Towers...

Master Samwise convincing Faramir to let him & Frodo go... Merry & Pippin convincing Treebeard to attack Isengard... The "angel" music convincing the audience to FEEL SAD NOW... The "theme" music convincing the audience to FEEL VICTORIOUS NOW... Peter Jackson convincing everyone how true he has remained to the spirit of the books...

From all that I have read, 98% of viewers adore TTT... and sadly I have ended up in the 2% that did not

I loved FOTR, but where that film simply veered off the road of the text, TTT plummets off the side of the road, down a ravine, takes some untraveled dirt back roads before taking some contrived short cut back to the original text in the film's forced last 1/2 hour

Though I know adjustments are always made in adaptations, this latest installment has lost the magic & sheer wonder of FOTR... None of the storytelling elements that made the first film so special are used in TTT... Sources of my frustration: * Choppy editing * Lack of fluidity * Is this movie a CGI showcase to sell new programs to perspective movie makers? * Axing central book events in favor of unecessary sub-plots * Lack of geographical reference (anyone who's read the books knows about the maps -- but what about those who have not read them??) * Uneven pacing * Forced emotional manipulation (instead of the authentic emotions that FOTR produced) * Sacrificing the thematic nuances of Tolkien's writing in favor of cinematic cliches to please a modern audience

I make no claims to being a "purist" or expert... like I said changes in adaptations are necessary, but man, I half expected stormtroopers to be riding on the wolves of Isengard

Can anyone understand what Treebeard is saying?

What's with these sudden cockney accents from the orcs - Oi's a-gonna ate yo (Meestah Scroooge/Fawvah Krees-mas --oops wrong movie)

Ok - enough, it's done, I said it, it's out in the cosmos

I'm praying for ROTK

For the other 98% of you -- please disregard this, you've already been convinced.

Scarface (1983)

FAB DVD

[2 October 2003]

I watched the new DVD in DTS last night and I thought it was amazing. A few people on Amazon were bi*ching about the sound mix. Yes, the dialogue is rough sounding in some spots, but that's part of what makes the film what it is. I really wouldn't want Tony's opening scene to be crystal clear. It has the sound of an old crime film noir from the 40's-- ya get it?? I think that's the point....

They did an amazing job with the print & the sound. Really a different experience than the cropped sliced and diced VHS. The film just comes off 100% better when seeing it this way. Gives you a better appreciation of DePalma's vision... Like watching a new movie.

A few scenes on the top of my head that come off completely different than the old print: the uprising scene, the bathtub scene & the New York scene. These all play out now on a new level. Much of this has to do with seeing the original 2.35 aspect ratio. And the image & sound is clean.

Performances are all memorable -- Pfeiffer & Mastrantonio particularly come off better than in the previous edition I saw. Bauer is great...And Pacino of course is legend now.

A lot of people have griped about Moroder's score, but I'm one of those that believes that the score is what lends the film its period authenticity. The only part that's a little cheesy for me is that Highway to the Danger Zone-esuqe montage with the beauty salon/wedding/tiger on a leash thing. I still can't stomach those few minutes- lol.

Although this movie received only a few accolades in its day, I believe it will be considered a true classic film. So many movies have been made in history, but only a few endure the test of time. This will be one of them. Like producer Martin Bregman has said, it is the "On the Waterfront" of its day, Pacino is our generation's Brando.

And for those of you who are still moaning about the 5.1 mix-- just take a toke and chill out. Enjoy, cause this is American film in its best form...

Grease 2 (1982)

CAMP CLASSIC

[10/10 · 23 June 2003]

"Grease 2" is the ugly stepchild of "Grease." Which makes is all the more fun, kitschy & loveable.

Songs are pretty good. Fun to see Pfeiffer at the beginning of her career, and Caulfield plays a great "closet leather guy" (lol-- you can have a field day with the homoerotic subtext-- what ARE those T-Birds paying Michael for anyway?!)

The original "Grease" has become a bit of a cliche, but the sequel is trashy unpretentious fun, and has enough spark & originality to stand on its own merit.

DVD transfer is quite good, finally in its 2.35:1 aspect ratio, and a nice 5.1 remastering, but no extras.

As "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" was to "Valley of the Dolls," so goes the same for "Grease 2." Perfect midnight movie.

Ignore those uptight people who diss it. Yes, it is BAD, but that's the joy of it.

The only reason to dislike it is because everyone says you're supposed to. Think free-- have fun!

The Fog (1980)

8 stars... even with the plot holes

[16 June 2003]

This is a classic horror film, but there just happen to be a few plot holes you can drive a small import vehicle through... if the ghosts are seeking the conspirators, why may I ask are they stalking the likes of Adrienne Barbeau & her son, Jamie Lee Curtis, Tom Atkins if they had nothing to do with the original crime? Are they the only ones in their cars that night? Where are the rest of the townfolk? Why aren't the ghost going after them? Why do the ghosts stalk between 12 & 1 the first night, but start at sundown the next? I'm confused...

All that aside, I still rate this 8 stars out of ten, simply because of the perfect ambiance. This film has one of the greatest opening sequences in horror film history.

Cinematography is beautiful, with stellar composition in each shot. I don't think there is a single shot that looks like it went without careful planning. Carpenter masterfully to build up the suspense amazingly for the first 45 minutes, then goes full throttle for the second half. This is one of the all time great mood movies.

Too bad the plot holes couldn't have been sewn up before the release, but that doesn't keep this from being one of Carpenter's best.

Hedwig and the Angry Inch (2001)

A gem in the heap of garbage called "American film"

[14 June 2003]

Without gushing, I think that this is the best film to come out of the US in several years. This is the type of movie which demands repeated viewing, and reveals itself a little each time. I'm surprised that the genius of this film didn't receive more accolades at the time, but I attribute that to the socially acceptable restraints of the mass culture.

Absolutely perfect production from top to bottom, makes you laugh out loud... then tears your heart out & puts it back in again. Multi layered & symbolic throughout.

Songwriting by Stephen Trask is sublime. But how the hell can a clown like Eminem get an Oscar & this guy was virtually ignored?! Sickening thought. Cameron Mitchell must have been born for this part... a brave & charismatic perf.

This movie achieves everything that "Velvet Goldmine" (yuck) could not... in a fraction of the time.

Anyway, anyone who's got a little freak in them will love this movie. And those who don't "get it" should be content watching the rest of American mass market trash cinema.